Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2014 - 07:59pm PT
|
"When I hear the word 'culture' I reach for my revolver"?
|
|
Bargainhunter
climber
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2014 - 09:49pm PT
|
Madbolter,
My point with the commentary about the teardrop gang tattoo was to dispel the myth that a person with a teardrop tattoo is an imminent threat to you. If you aren’t involved in gang culture (e.g. appear as a rival gang member), then the guy wearing a Raider’s cap and sporting a teardrop tattoo and other gang tats who is waiting in line in front of you at the Yucaipa 7-11, holding bag of Funyuns and a Slurpee, poses no threat to you. He’s not going to take the stirrer out of your 24 oz Hazelnut coffee and stab you in the eye socket with it, despite how many gangland shows have appeared on TV.
So you can relax your grip on your .454 Casul and pull your hand out of your Patagonia briefs and perhaps think about cooler stuff on the way to Tahquiz like flashing the Vampire or hang dogging Paisano Overhang until you get it dialed.
Gang members are pathetic idiots and you give them too much credit. There isn’t a “ruthless Darwinian selection process” to join a gang, unless it involves a questionnaire asking if you are A) mentally retarded and B) excited about picking your nose all day. If you friend’s brother couldn’t make it into a gang, then sadly his cerebral palsy must have been too severe or he failed the complicated questionnaire listed in the previous sentence. I’m not here to make light of your friend’s brother’s tragedy, but people in gangs are many, many frijoles short of a full burrito.
Gang violence is primarily between gang members. Sure, innocent people can get caught in crossfire during any escalation of violence or crime but for the most part it’s trash killing trash. People outside of that culture aren’t really on the radar.
A few other facts that may interest people who haven’t been exposed to gang culture (aside from the media drama and Hollywood’s exaggerated silly portrayals) is 1) how young most gang members are (i.e. 13 years old), 2) how physically slight and unintimidating they are, and 3) how incredibly f*#king stupid they are. Most are functionally illiterate; the fact that some have figured out how to use toilet paper and others have learned how to eat their mashed potatoes and peas with a spoon instead of rubbing it all over their foreheads, is, based on their baseline cognitive impairment, impressive.
Tragically, gang bangers have embraced a persona that makes them feel important somehow which revolves around an ethos of senseless violence (e.g. killing another gang member from another neighborhood because he’s simply walking down the sidewalk) and cowardly shootings (e.g. drive byes and car to car highway shootings) that makes no rational sense outside of their narrow pathetic world but has it’s own reward system within the gang. The cost of this behavior to rest of society is high: incarceration, fear of violence, the expense of law enforcement etc., not to mention the cost of the wasted human potential of both the victim and perpetrator.
My point of bringing all of this up was simply to point out that a baldheaded tatted up latino dude in a wifebeater with teardrop tattoos should not make you get all paranoid and wound up. Relax. Chill out. Try being nice instead of openly hostile. If you feel the context is appropriate you could even ask him about the significance of some of the tattoos, but I suspect by your contempt and anger that this might pose a challenge. Many gang members are proud of their tattoos [like many people with fashion accessories that you may find silly (e.g. gauged ears)] and enjoy talking about them if you show genuine interest and aren’t a judgmental as#@&%e.
Perhaps your own tension and fear and misinterpretation of a threat can be replaced by an awareness and compassion that might help you be less angry and less confrontational. You create the world you see.
To get back to the theme of main thread (gun debate issues), and to respond to your point that “you apparently think it's much more of a problem/hassle to [conceal carry] do so than it actually is.” Yes I absolutely do! Even a loaded Glock 26 in an Uncle Mike’s undershirt-shirt holster is a pain. It’s heavy. I don’t feel mortally threatened to carry a weapon all the time as cheap insurance for the infinitesimal chance of really needing a gun to defend myself. Sure, I can imagine a scenario where one really needs a gun (and then you probably really need a gun), but I‘m not just not in those circumstance, ever.
I can also get angry and confrontational and am self-aware enough that having a gun might cause me to loose rational perspective and push things too far with tragic results. It’s also easy to mis-judge situations and perhaps use it against the wrong person, as was the case with a concealed carrier who witnessed the Arizona Representative Gabrielle Giffords’ shooting and nearly shot an innocent guy who took the gun away from the shooter. Accidental discharges can occur too. I feel that most conceal carriers are not honest with the danger they pose to themselves and others by carrying a gun. Some can handle the responsibility, others, I’m not so sure.
I can understand those who feel they need/want to carry, but I think many are preoccupied with phantom fears and imagined threats that are blown way, way out of proportion, e.g. teardrop tattoos.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2014 - 01:45am PT
|
Bargainhunter,
You're still "profiling," lecturing, and presuming that you know my emotional responses toward gang members.
You still haven't explained how you think you know so much, which makes me wonder what you are hiding. Don't you think we should have the ability to assess your credibility?
For myself, I don't need that; I'm asking for others. For myself, I read your generalizations and know that you don't know what you are talking about.
I've personally known dozens of gang MEMBER individuals from a variety of gangs ranging from the Diablos to the South Side Mafia. I've known Latinos, blacks, and whites. I don't feel in the slightest threatened by them in general, particularly in non-turf places, such as amusement parks and other non-contested areas.
Your generalizations about their stupidity are, flatly, ridiculous. And your threat assessment generalizations are also, flatly, ridiculous.
I'm done responding to you because I don't care for your lectures, particularly when I know first-hand that your generalizations are unfounded and that you are lecturing to somebody besides me, because addressed to me, what you have to say is also unfounded.
Good day.
|
|
couchmaster
climber
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2014 - 07:47am PT
|
Thanks Madbolter. I'm with Judge Alex Kozinski’s view which is this:
"The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."
Bottom line for me, I trust all of you, my friends, fellow citizens and relatives, more than the Government. Seems like an easy choice to me.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2014 - 08:08am PT
|
I too worry about the abstract threat of a government takeover more than the day to day reality if gun violence.
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2014 - 08:10am PT
|
When the time comes that the army and government decide that elections are done with and it's time for dictatorship to restore America to her rightful place, the gun nuts will be on their side. Believe it.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2014 - 12:55pm PT
|
Thank you, couchmaster, and I also entirely agree with the "backstop" idea.
Of course, that gets Americans at most gun OWNERSHIP. It cannot ground the right of carry in public. On that note, this sentiment is very well-founded!
I too worry about the abstract threat of a government takeover more than the day to day reality if gun violence.
Dirtbag rightly notes that the right of ownership as "backstop" doesn't motivate the right of carry, which in the minds of many is synonymous with the "epidemic of gun violence."
Only the inalienable right of self defense (which government neither grants nor can take away) can ground the right of carry.
However, as with all rights, the government IS within ITS rights to regulate that right in such a way as to balance the inalienable right with the public welfare.
As I've argued repeatedly, I don't believe that there IS any "epidemic of gun violence" that needs huge steps and federal laws to "balance."
However, that said, I DO think that getting a carry license should be harder than it is. To whit....
My wife and I are finishing our CCW course tonight. Last night we spent hours listening to a state-licensed instructor, and I've been struck thus far by several things:
1) On the law, she is pretty clueless, which is shocking. I had hoped to gain far more knowledge than my own research has granted me. Not only does she not know as much as several of us in the class, on several important points she is outright wrong. So, she's of no legal help, and the laws MATTER!
2) This is a "basic pistol safety course" by name. It is indeed BASIC! It's virtually at the level of, "This is the muzzle, which is the end the bullet comes out of." And so on. Tonight we'll do our range test, which amounts to: "You'll need to get 80% of your shots on the paper at 15 yards." REALLY? On the paper, huh? You mean the man-sized paper?
Look, if you can't do FAR better than that, you have NO business carrying a gun in public!!! At 25 yards I can get 80% of my shots within a six-inch group, and I don't think of myself as AT ALL "good." My wife can do as well at 15 yards, and she's shot our gun during TWO sessions so far. ON THE PAPER?!??? Whaaaaatttt???
Seeing "the bar" one must get over to get a CCW in Colorado, I'm pretty appalled. Here's what it SHOULD be:
* You must have a CCW license to CARRY: open or concealed. Then your choice is tactical rather than simply that you open-carry because you can't or won't qualify for the CCW.
* The CCW should be pretty hard to get. You should be able to shoot AT LEAST as well as my wife can, and the course should include LOTS of law and tactical scenarios under the law. And the test should NOT be multiple choice with a caveat like this: "If you pass the test, it doesn't mean we'll sign off on your certificate, and if you fail the test, it doesn't mean we won't sign off on your certificate." The former should be true, but not the latter, and you SHOULD have to get at least 75% on a test like this!
* People that would moan about how this unduly raises the bar or that it will be too expensive for the "poor" to get would leave me cold. This is a DEADLY WEAPON, and you have to get over a higher bar than I've described to get a drivers license! And if you can't prioritize the time/expense to get GOOD with your gun and pay for such a certification process, you clearly are not financially responsible enough to be carrying in the first place.
* There should be mandatory insurance, such as auto insurance. When you carry, your risks of lawsuit and the need of criminal defense skyrocket! No standard policies, including "umbrella" policies cover these risks. If you are going to be a responsible carrier, you MUST be financially responsible as well.
* Finally, if the CCW bar was higher, at least like I'm describing, the cops could instantly know (as could the public) that the person they see with a gun is both COMMITTED and COMPETENT. As it stands, pretty much any goofball (and there are a couple in our class!) can get a CCW. In a "shall issue" state, the competency and responsibility bar should be MUCH higher!
Under such a model, the criminal element would already be at a legal disadvantage, which is precisely what we want to see.
So, yes, CARRY... but with competency, responsibility, and commitment. The right of self-defense CAN be balanced with the public welfare. And making such a license be "shall issue" but coupled with a quite high bar would go far toward achieving this balance.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2014 - 01:27pm PT
|
Yeah, well, that's why I'm not posting on the "what is mind" thread. It's impossible to have a serious, rigorous discussion without "length." And that means that the thread-attention-span is a deal-killer.
Oh well. It's there for anybody that has an attention span.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2014 - 02:49pm PT
|
You know, I don't think I've ever met you. I wonder if you'd be such an ass to my face.
Internet shots are cheap and easy. Appears to be your level.
|
|
Braunini
Big Wall climber
cupertino
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2014 - 02:53pm PT
|
ass to my face
well put
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2014 - 03:37pm PT
|
Nobody forces you to be on this thread or read my posts. You don't like it: move along. No need to be an ass.
And I would think that the gun-control folks would like what I wrote. LOL... I'm coming more and more to their side. Now I'm for more regulations!
Sheesh, I thought the CCW class was going to be something of a "filter." It's not.
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2014 - 06:16pm PT
|
I couldn't agree more with your suggestions for carrying any gun in public, except to require regular re-certification and that the punishment for unlicensed carry must be severe. In PA, assuming you're not otherwise prohibited from owning a gun, unlicensed carry is a merely a misdemeanor.
This is something that can readily and more effectively be done a state level, since administrative structures are so varied and it does not impact other states. Despite becoming a convert to the potential benefits of the "laboratory" philosophy of state regulation, I continue to believe that Universal Background Checks cannot be left for the states to decide because even one non complying state (except Hawaii) would replace all the others as a ready source of diverted guns. It could be a Federal mandate left to states to implement. Perhaps the Feds could simply prohibit importing to, or exporting guns from non compliant states. That would soon fix it.
TE
|
|
johnboy
Trad climber
Can't get here from there
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2014 - 06:40pm PT
|
And I would think that the gun-control folks would like what I wrote. LOL... I'm coming more and more to their side. Now I'm for more regulations!
This would be a bait and switch when compared with your many previous posts you have constantly argued against any new laws since either
1. There is some way around any new laws thereby nullifying such law, or
2. Enforce the laws we already have.
I will agree that the laws we have are not being enforced and is one avenue worth uniting on. So if that is one of your tenents, why aren't you and many of the no more gun law owners up in arms (no humor intended) at all the city, county, state and federal law enforcement agencies not prosecuting to the full extent the laws we already have? It would appear that this is just a facade being propagated by those that are complacent with the status quo knowing enforcement is a joke. If there were a true fever pitch as you and most gun owners proclaim to this tenent, it appears to be a viable slam dunk. I'm afraid this hollow angle will fall on its face if it were to ever gain traction due to the "careful what you ask for" factor. We'd soon see the true heart of those calling for enforcment.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 16, 2014 - 11:02pm PT
|
This would be a bait and switch when compared with your many previous posts
Bait and switch? Are you kidding?
So, by your lights a person is not entitled to further nuance their position once in possession of additional evidence or a new perspective? Really?
And I'm really not "switching" anything. If you think I've argued against ALL regulations at any point, you have not read and contextualized what I've said.
TE: I LIKE the idea of a federal law regarding interstate transport. And I also agree that penalties should be severe!
I'd like to see DUI penalties made horrendous, AND gun violation penalties also be horrendous. Both cars and guns are deadly weapons, and both are abused by negligent and criminal elements to the great detriment of society.
Seeing how trivial is the CCW standard in Colorado, I stand amazed!
|
|
johnboy
Trad climber
Can't get here from there
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2014 - 09:02am PT
|
The point you fail to get hold of is that the laws (on any front) don't work
Yes, we shouldn't have more laws when the enforcement of the present (and what should be adequate) laws has already proven to be ineffectual
These are direct quotes from you. You have also built many other walls such as, no new federal laws and laws that all can agree on. Both of these are nonstarters and you continually position yourself as totally entrenched on these and other fronts.
Now you want me to believe that there are some laws that don't match your criteria from your other posts that you'd agree to? Bait with your supposed new enlightened views, then switch back to your prior position. Been there, seen that.
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2014 - 09:54am PT
|
Either is a good choice for personal defense weapons
Not really. Sometimes these scenarios backfire.
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2014 - 01:48pm PT
|
These are direct quotes from you.
As I said, lacking context.
I've been very clear and consistent that I'm talking about new federal laws. I've used examples like the fact that the FEDS supposedly lock down military weapons, yet I could trivially get full-auto weapons and even claymores. I've talked about FEDERAL "war on..." fails. I've talked about gun control being a states' rights issue. I'm not sure how I could be more clear! And I still hold to the principles that ground that position.
I think that TE came up with a really clever compromise that makes illegal interstate transfer a federal matter, but leaves the first line of defense of that law in the hands of the states. It's a great idea to have state and local law enforcement decide or not to arrest someone on such a federal charge and then pass prosecution up to the federal courts. And on that model, there's no need of a federal gun registry or federal agents running around enforcing that sort of law. Brilliant! So, I'm happy to "compromise" on that sort of thing.
And I remain opposed to entirely symbolic, useless gun control laws at the state level, such as magazine-size limits.
Beyond that, I think that Colorado has NAILED it regarding background checks, and I'd like to see every state take the same approach.
No "bait and switch" anywhere.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2014 - 01:54pm PT
|
The Smith&Wesson MP series.
My wife and I just looked at one of those at the range last night. Sweet gun! That's a very real possibility.
Wow, last night my wife was spot on in the range test for the CCW certificate! She put me to shame. The instructors were all gathered around in awe, calling her a rock star! She was shooting as well as the marine next to her, and with our .40, while he was shooting a 9mm that he had put thousands of rounds through. My wife has shot exactly three times in her life so far.
She put 40+ rounds through a 1-inch (yes 1-INCH) hole at 15 yards. One stray shot was four inches off. But EVERY other round went through the same 1-inch hole she had created! Frigging amazing! We were all just astounded. My three-inch grouping looked scattered and pathetic next to hers (better than everybody else but her and the marine, fortunately). ONE hole--40+ rounds. CRAZY!
She IS a rock star.
|
|
johnboy
Trad climber
Can't get here from there
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2014 - 06:31pm PT
|
As I said, lacking context.
I've been very clear and consistent that I'm talking about new federal laws. I've used examples like the fact that the FEDS supposedly lock down military weapons, yet I could trivially get full-auto weapons and even claymores. I've talked about FEDERAL "war on..." fails. I've talked about gun control being a states' rights issue. I'm not sure how I could be more clear! And I still hold to the principles that ground that position.
I think that TE came up with a really clever compromise that makes illegal interstate transfer a federal matter, but leaves the first line of defense of that law in the hands of the states. It's a great idea to have state and local law enforcement decide or not to arrest someone on such a federal charge and then pass prosecution up to the federal courts. And on that model, there's no need of a federal gun registry or federal agents running around enforcing that sort of law. Brilliant! So, I'm happy to "compromises" on that sort of thing.
And I remain opposed to entirely symbolic, useless gun control laws at the state level, such as magazine-size limits.
Beyond that, I think that Colorado has NAILED it regarding background checks, and I'd like to see every state take the same approach.
No "bait and switch" anywhere
The context is in the quote, go back and read them, they're all of 2 or 3 pages back. You won't be able to nuance them to anything else as they're at face value as is.
The rest of you above are nothing more then anything new must fall within your guidelines. While you restate that your against magazine limits, many of your arguments against them don't hold much water and there is a tide much larger than you for them. Not that that matters when your door is closed. Thats just one front you refuse to budge, your totally ensconced on many other workable amd sensible laws. Please read any of your other hundreds of posts as proof.
Again, I'm not against guns, but you've got to be dense if you don't acknowledge there is a change a coming. If we don't get a grip on mass slayings of children there will be laws that even I wouldn't want. Get flexible or you can stand your ground while at first the rest of the country moves around you, only to find your soon entombed by your own convictions.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!